On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:19:56 -0800, allen wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> On 26 Feb 2010 02:31:44 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Raises an interesting point. Wonder how many people could tell the
>> difference in a Chevy Malibu vs a BMW 330i, if they were blindfolded, had
>> earplugs, and were riding as a passenger? So do we start berating anybody
>> who drives a BMW as being "autophools"?
>
> That is indeed an interesting point.
> However pretty much the whole point of owning, driving and being seen
> in a prestige brand car is to display one's wealth and superior
> genetic stock, peacock-style.
> Which is not the same as convincing oneself that an expensive piece of
> audio equipment *sounds better* than a cheaper piece of equipment
> because it looks and costs more...

Oh, no, not at all! 8^)

Not to mention the difficulty one would have driving ANY car blindfolded.
They don't give blind people driving licenses in your state do they? They
would here in CA though, provided you paid the worthless swine in Sacramento
enough....

But there are more differences between a Malibu and a BMW than there is
between two audio amps such as, for instance a Crown XTi1000 at $500 and one
of those gorgeous (to look at) Classe CT-2200 amps at TEN TIMES the Crown's
price at $5000. Of course the $500 Crown has more power into 8 Ohms than does
the Classe (275 W/channel vs 200), but they are otherwise very similar and I
SUPECT that they would be indistinguishable one from the other in a DBT, as
well. Sure, like the Crown vs the Classe, the BMW has more ostentatious
"bling" than the Malibu and costs a LOT more (though not 10X). OTOH, the BMW
actually performs measurably as well as observably much better than the
Malibu. The Beemer, however, is much faster, has lap times around a race
course that are probably at LEAST half that of the Malibu. The BMW
accelerates quicker, has a higher top speed, and stops from any speed in a
shorter distance and will do it all day.

IOW, you pay, Maybe $30,000 for a Chevy Malibu. The BMW costs probably
$80,000 for a 5 series (I'm guessing, of course, but the price delta between
the two is maybe 3X or 4X not 10X). The point is that you actually and
inarguably get more car with the Beemer than with the Malibu while you do not
really get ANYTHING more with the Classe vs the Crown except the bling and
the bragging rights: "This is my new power amp, I paid $5000 for it!"

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:13:49 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> On Feb 27, 7:25=A0am, Audio Empire <audio_emp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:52:11 -0800, Scott wrote
>> (in article <hm9tsb0...@news7.newsguy.com>):
>>
>>
>>> Many tests have been "published" the problem is most of them are
>>> anecdotal and some who advocate blind testing as needed for "proof"
>>> have been caught cherry picking from the anecdotes. One can see clear
>>> as day hopw easily one particular anecdote was attacked due to the
>>> undesirable results.
>>
>> If you notice, I was speaking SPECIFICALLY about DBTs
>
>
> I was speaking about blind tests too.
>
>> and was answering a
>> poster who thinks that expecting the average audiophile to conduct DBTs i=
> s
>> "silly".
>
>
> He is right. It is silly to expect anything of other audiophiles.
>
>
>
>
>>> DBTs are useful for removing bias effects. That can be applied to
>>> any test where bias effects are in play. There is nothing unique in
>>> audio about telling differences between two aleged similar items. Fact
>>> is bias is in play and has an affect on preferences even when gross
>>> differences in sound are present. That some audiophiles would limit
>>> their use of bias controls to try to prove a point they already
>>> beleive about differences seems futile. If you think about it.
>>> removing bias from the audition process is far more important when
>>> there are audible differences than when there are not audible
>>> differences. Think about it.
>>
>> I have. Double blind tests show that difference either exist or do not WH=
> EN
>> biases are removed. Seems to me we are saying the same thing. Remove the
>> sighted or expectational biases, and even "true believers" can see the tr=
> uth
>> of these so-called "differences" (although many still won't admit it).
>
>
> No we are not saying the same thing. what I am saying is remove the
> bias and one can get an unbiased opinion on sound quality even when
> the differences are gross. My point being that if two things sound the
> same and someone prefers one over the other because of biases that
> person does not get objectively inferior sound. He gets the same sound
> but enjoys it more. OTOH when differences are real but preferences are
> swayed by bias then one runs the very real risk of choosing
> objectively inferior sound because of bias effects. This audiophile
> really does loose out due to bias effects. So while some audiophiles
> are obsessing over who is right about what sounds the same they are
> missing the boat when bias effects can actually have a real
> detrimental effect on one's choice of components. I find that
> extremely ironic.

Yes we are saying the same thing and that's my final word on that aspect of
this subject. We just express it differently. I believe that you are thinking
about DBT testing in general and I'm thinking about DBT as applies to cables,
amplifiers, CD players, speakers, audio tweaks, etc.

>>>> Like I said, DB or ABX tests are really for finding differences, not f=
> or
>>>> determining which is better.
>>
>>> That is simply not true. DBTs are really for removing bias effects.
>>> Bias effects are in play always when we are talking about subjective
>>> evaluations of perceptions.
>>
>> I dunno, when sighted tests find differences that DBTs show not to exist,
>> then I would say that it's good at revealing whether or not the differenc=
> es
>> are real or imagined. In other words, we're saying the same thing, you ju=
> st
>> like the way you word it better 8^)
>
> That wasn't my point.

But it was mine.



You asserted that DBTs were limited in use to
> finding differences. They have a much broader range of use which
> includes determining unbiased preferences.

No, I said that they aren't very good for making value judgements about the
quality of those differences. I never said that they were limited to finding
differences. But I was also thinking solely about audio DBTs when I wrote
that. And for sure, the usefulness in audio is pretty much to finding
differences. But in other fields, they are far more useful. For instance,
DBT drug tests can find out if a drug is really effective or not by giving
some testers in the drug a placebo and other the actual drug. Those
administering the test don't know which is which, and the testers don't know
which they are taking. When the results are tabulated, and it is found that a
statistically significant sampling of the group actually given the drug
noticed real improvement of their condition, then it is generally clear that
the drug exhibits SOME effectiveness. This test, however is unlikely to
uncover the extent of the effectiveness, or any side effects. These require
other DBTs designed to uncover those characteristics.

>>>> For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleane=
> d f=3D
>>> rom
>>>> a spec sheet or a simple demonstration.
>>
>>> That will not eliminate bias effects at all.
>>
>> Who said it did?
>>
>
> You said all one needs for *most* products can be gleaned from a spec
> sheet or simple demo. Apparently in *most* cases you are not concerned
> with bias effects in one's process of choosing. Why the limited
> concern for bias effects when they are always in play if not
> controlled?
>

Because in most products, selection comes down to suitability to a need,
specifications, and personal taste. For instance a man with six kids is
likely not looking for a sports car to haul them around in. A guy who
commutes 100 miles a day to work, is unlikely to purchase a 14 MPG Dodge Hemi
Charger for that commute. A person who doesn't like brussels sprouts isn't
likely to purchase a frozen entre containing them.

But audio is different. People "think" they hear things (or get told that
they hear things) that simply do not exist (such as a difference in "sound"
between a 1-meter throw-away Radio Shack interconnect and a $4000 1-meter
Nordost Valhalla interconnect or other obscenely priced piece of wire). When
subjected to a double blind test between these two, whereby sighted and
expectational biases are removed, and they hear no difference between the
two, then the totally honest audiophile will admit that he is wrong. On the
other hand, a man who says that two amps sound different and that his super
expensive Whiz-Bang 2000 sounds better than another amp can be vindicated
when the two are compared via a correctly set-up DBT. If he picks his
Whiz-Bang 2000 a statistically meaningful number of times, then we are left
with the overwhelming conclusion that that there probably is a difference
between the sounds of these two amps, and that he was right. What that DBT
fails to reveal, usually, is which one really sounds better. That's often a
question of taste, and DBT's aren't very good at determining that aspect of
the differences in the sound of two DUTs from a taste standpoint.

On Feb 28, 4:04=A0am, Audio Empire <audio_emp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:13:49 -0800, Scott wrote
> (in article <7utjotFfm...@mid.individual.net>):

> Yes we are saying the same thing and that's my final word on that aspect =
of
> this subject.


And my final word is that we are not. There you have it.


>
> > =A0You asserted that DBTs were limited in use to
> > finding differences. They have a much broader range of use which
> > includes determining unbiased preferences.
>
> No,

Here is what you actually said. "Like I said, DB or ABX tests are
really for finding differences, not for
determining which is better " So it is what you said.


> I said that they aren't very good for making value judgements about the
> quality of those differences.

I will accept that amended version. It is still completely wrong
though. Bias controlled preference tests are actually very very good
for making value judgements. And they are widely used for that
purpose.


> I never said that they were limited to finding
> differences.

Your words. " "Like I said, DB or ABX tests are really for finding
differences, not for
determining which is better "

> But I was also thinking solely about audio DBTs when I wrote
> that.

Irrelevant. Bias controlled tests can be single, double or even triple
blind. they are essentially all bias controlled tests just that double
blind is better at removing sublime biases than single blind. DBTs are
not only suitable for determining preferences they are ideal if one is
concerned about bias effects which are present in any and all
subjective preferences made without bias controls.


> And for sure, the usefulness in audio is pretty much to finding
> differences.


I'm thinkin Floyd Toole and Sean Olive might disagree given the
multimillion dollar facility they have at HK for doing blind
"preference" comparisons for speaker development.



> > You said all one needs for *most* products can be gleaned from a spec
> > sheet or simple demo. Apparently in *most* cases you are not concerned
> > with bias effects in one's process of choosing. Why the limited
> > concern for bias effects when they are always in play if not
> > controlled?
>
> Because in most products, selection comes down to suitability to a need,
> specifications, and personal taste.

And audio is different?

> For instance a man with six kids is
> likely not looking for a sports car to haul them around in. A guy who
> commutes 100 miles a day to work, is unlikely to purchase a 14 MPG Dodge =
Hemi
> Charger for that commute. A person who doesn't like brussels sprouts isn'=
t
> likely to purchase a frozen entre containing them.
>
> But audio is different.

Audio actually is no different. Bias effects are present in all
subjective perceptual evaluations.


> People "think" they hear things (or get told that
> they hear things) that simply do not exist (such as a difference in "soun=
d"
> between a 1-meter throw-away Radio Shack interconnect and a $4000 1-meter
> Nordost Valhalla interconnect or other obscenely priced piece of wire). W=
hen
> subjected to a double blind test between these two, whereby sighted and
> expectational biases are removed, and they hear no difference between the
> two, then the totally honest audiophile will admit that he is wrong.



It has nothing to do with honesty and the fact is in many cases the
perception of a difference returns as soon as the bias controls are
removed. It is human nature not a matter of honesty.


> On the
> other hand, a man who says that two amps sound different and that his sup=
er
> expensive Whiz-Bang 2000 sounds better than another amp can be vindicated
> when the two are compared via a correctly set-up DBT. If he picks his
> Whiz-Bang 2000 a statistically meaningful number of times, then we are le=
ft
> with the overwhelming conclusion that that there probably is a difference
> between the sounds of these two amps, and that he was right.


If "vindication" is the issue then we are talking about egos here not
audio.

> What that DBT
> fails to reveal, usually, is which one really sounds better.


It all depends on how a DBT is designed. why anyone would bother with
anything that is not geared towards preference is beyond me. well,
actually it isn't. It is the test of choice for those consumed with
debating these things.


> That's often a
> question of taste, and DBT's aren't very good at determining that aspect =
of
> the differences in the sound of two DUTs from a taste standpoint


As said before, you are plainly mistaken on that matter.DBTs are very
very good for making bias controlled determinations of subjective
preferences. Further more, logic dictates that the best use of blind
protocols in the auditioning process would be when making a choice
between components that actually sound different since there is no
wrong choice sonically between components that sound the same. Ironic
that the vast majority of DBTs don't actually make use of them in
their own choices when they are of the most use. Clearly, this is
where we disagree.

"C. Leeds" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)

> I recognize that you agree that blind testing is often of
> little use to the typical audiophile.

As has been pointed out many times, audiophiles don't have to do blind tests
themselves to benefit from blind tests. Blind tests have been crucial parts
of the development of many different products that are employed by
audiophiles these days. Since high end manufacturers rarely if ever develop
basic audio technologies, neither high end audiophiles, nor high end
manufacturers need to employ blind testing for high end audiphiles to
benefit from them.